Uh, yeah, but the same is true for GPL v2. The GPL has always been an expression of a moral view that imposes constraints on others. The current debate cannot be about whether we should do so, but rather the EXTENT to which we will do so. That makes my comment precisely on topic.
Unless you think the GPL doesn't embody any moral views; of course, this would make you an idiot.
Look, GPL3 does not force ``our" morality (in whatever sense of ``our" is relevant) here on anyone; nobody is compelled to use the license OR to use software released under such a license. This is not exactly like sending a perv-squad to take down adult shops or sending Christian soldiers off on a crusade in the middle-east or sending young people to blow themselves up in crowded buildings. . . . Heck, it isn't even like that whack-job Jack Thompson.
(As an aside, there IS frequently plenty good reason to force our morality on those who don't agree. If the come walking into my town to commit genocide, I will impose my morality on them by either (i) appealing to their rationality or (ii) using force.)
I know you got modded ``off topic" for your comment, but this was pretty much my response to the 100s of complicated, time-consuming, and ultimately inadequate solutions too. (Well, not exactly; I didn't think of slack specifically, but I did have the ``why not run *BSD or GNU/Linux?"
Other people have ably commented on the fact that ``Professor John Lott" (woo-hoo, a positive remark about a professor!) is a fraud, but let me add this:
Texas has a fairly permissive concealed carry licensing policy: take a class to show you can shoot straight, pay a fee, and you're basically good to go. This hasn't exactly helped people in Dallas or Houston remain crime free---despite the fact that the concealed carry law requires concealment so that criminals cannot tell who is carrying.
Now, to answer your rhetorical question: if the town with guns is substantially wealthier, I'm going there to commit my crimes. I'm just going to be clever about my criminality, and, barring that, I'm going to be more inclined to shoot first while committing the crime. (If the reward is high enough, then the risk is justified.)
You're right, at least in part, about Searle's argument; he does (IIRC, it has been a while since I read/taught the original piece) think that the Turing test is not a sufficient test for intelligence---because one could produce results that satisfy the Turing test without grasping the thoughts expressed.
A really good response to Searle comes from the Churchlands, who do want to say that there is some understanding, and so the Chinese Room argument doesn't work. To do so, they try to show why his argument is fallacioius; the argument is ingenious, though I'm not sure I buy it either:
Churchland, Paul, and Patricia Smith Churchland (1990), "Could a Machine Think?", Scientific American 262(1, January):32-39.
This argument dates back at least 25 years, to John Searle's ``Chinese Room" argument; Searle argues that the gap between syntax and semantics cannot be bridged by a digital computer running a program to generate responses to questions. There has been much discussion of this argument, some of it quite interesting:
How is it that OpenBSD is able to be so secure by design with so few resources and yet all of Microsoft's resources cannot stem the tide of security problems that impact everyone, including those of us who do not use Microsoft programs?
Uh, it isn't ``free will" if it is ``unconscious". The point of free will was that we have sufficient control over our actions so as to be morally responsible---but since actions that issue from the unconscious aren't that kind of action, they are not free.
Sorry, but the Barbie thing was *NOT* a quality control problem. Those Barbies didn't get *shipped* with G.I. Joe voice boxes; it was a prank by the ``Yes Men". They bought a bunch of Barbies and GI Joe dolls, swapped the voice boxes, and then put out a press release as the Barbie Liberation Organization (BLO).
They subsequently went to various economic meetings posing as WTO representatives and proposed some evil, but very hillarious, options for improving globalization. There's a so-so documentary on them called ``The Yes Men".
Well, since you asked, I have Ubuntu running on my iBook.
I recently used OS X on a friend's powerbook at a conference, and I thought it was pretty, but the fact that I couldn't change window managers sucked. I really don't like WIMP interfaces for most tasks, but there are no other options on OS X.
Also, GNU/Linux, in addition to being free, runs faster on my iBook. I don't miss OS X, except for a few of the Gamehouse games I bought years ago.
I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure why people are so wedded to the One True WM mentality. There are many ways of working with computers, and people have many different interests in using them. Even more, neophytes will have different interests, will bring different skill-sets to the party, and will tolerate different learning curves.
My own preference is wmii (wmii.de), which does away with the whole premise of WIMP interfaces. I find that WIMP orientations get in the way more often than not (though there are important exceptions). Eye candy is great and all---I love me some enlightenment e17---but I'd rather just get my work done, and for me that means that the WM should get out of the way, there should be no ``desktop", and I should rarely be using my mouse. If you're down with that, go check out wmii; if not, then, well, you're a blasphemer and a heretic and you are totally teh suxors. . . .
I don't want to feed the trolls here, but let me just say this:
When I teach a section in my ethics classes about Free Software, my students (virtually all of whom use windows) are astonished when I tell them that my computers (1 GNU/Linux laptop, 1 FreeBSD desktop) only get rebooted when I update the kernel. They are convinced that rebooting every few days is necessary for, e.g., memory management.
Even if BSODs are ``so last year," the fact is that Windows is poorly designed and poorly executed to the point of fostering bad habits and very low expectations in its users. So, suckitude is this year's BSOD.
So, what, all the IANAL-posters on slashdot should now do this work?
Insert obligatory Lionel Hutz quotes .
I mean, this is clearly one of those places where those who don't like the EFF could step up and, you know, hire some lawyers (presumably ones they think are good) and fight the good fight.
But, of course, that takes more energy than posting nasty things on Slashdot . . . .
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yeah, but the same is true for GPL v2. The GPL has always been an expression of a moral view that imposes constraints on others. The current debate cannot be about whether we should do so, but rather the EXTENT to which we will do so. That makes my comment precisely on topic.
Unless you think the GPL doesn't embody any moral views; of course, this would make you an idiot.
Look, GPL3 does not force ``our" morality (in whatever sense of ``our" is relevant) here on anyone; nobody is compelled to use the license OR to use software released under such a license. This is not exactly like sending a perv-squad to take down adult shops or sending Christian soldiers off on a crusade in the middle-east or sending young people to blow themselves up in crowded buildings. . . . Heck, it isn't even like that whack-job Jack Thompson.
(As an aside, there IS frequently plenty good reason to force our morality on those who don't agree. If the come walking into my town to commit genocide, I will impose my morality on them by either (i) appealing to their rationality or (ii) using force.)
I know you got modded ``off topic" for your comment, but this was pretty much my response to the 100s of complicated, time-consuming, and ultimately inadequate solutions too. (Well, not exactly; I didn't think of slack specifically, but I did have the ``why not run *BSD or GNU/Linux?"
Agreed! After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people . . . .
Other people have ably commented on the fact that ``Professor John Lott" (woo-hoo, a positive remark about a professor!) is a fraud, but let me add this:
Texas has a fairly permissive concealed carry licensing policy: take a class to show you can shoot straight, pay a fee, and you're basically good to go. This hasn't exactly helped people in Dallas or Houston remain crime free---despite the fact that the concealed carry law requires concealment so that criminals cannot tell who is carrying.
Now, to answer your rhetorical question: if the town with guns is substantially wealthier, I'm going there to commit my crimes. I'm just going to be clever about my criminality, and, barring that, I'm going to be more inclined to shoot first while committing the crime. (If the reward is high enough, then the risk is justified.)
Actually, digg beat slashdot to it. It was on the front page of digg early this morning (US, Central time), and I was able to get on the site.
The only down side is that I'll never get those wasted 5 seconds back.
I, for one, welcome our interleaving of sectional content overlords.
You're right, at least in part, about Searle's argument; he does (IIRC, it has been a while since I read/taught the original piece) think that the Turing test is not a sufficient test for intelligence---because one could produce results that satisfy the Turing test without grasping the thoughts expressed.
s ebiblio.html
A really good response to Searle comes from the Churchlands, who do want to say that there is some understanding, and so the Chinese Room argument doesn't work. To do so, they try to show why his argument is fallacioius; the argument is ingenious, though I'm not sure I buy it either:
Churchland, Paul, and Patricia Smith Churchland (1990), "Could a Machine Think?", Scientific American 262(1, January):32-39.
There's also a nice annotated bibliography on this issue at:
http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/chine
This argument dates back at least 25 years, to John Searle's ``Chinese Room" argument; Searle argues that the gap between syntax and semantics cannot be bridged by a digital computer running a program to generate responses to questions. There has been much discussion of this argument, some of it quite interesting:
.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Room
(I'll pass over in silence the fact that this review is of a book that is more than a decade old and focuses on only one of 9 chapters . . .
Of course, so is posting idiotic and uninformed stuff when you're an anonymous coward. . . .
How is it that OpenBSD is able to be so secure by design with so few resources and yet all of Microsoft's resources cannot stem the tide of security problems that impact everyone, including those of us who do not use Microsoft programs?
Uh, it isn't ``free will" if it is ``unconscious". The point of free will was that we have sufficient control over our actions so as to be morally responsible---but since actions that issue from the unconscious aren't that kind of action, they are not free.
I don't know, but let's give it a shot:
Give me the number of your credit card, and then I'll keep an eye out for any transactions you're making.
Are we talking dead as in ``Biggie Smalls is dead" or dead as in ``Paul is Dead"?
Sorry, but the Barbie thing was *NOT* a quality control problem. Those Barbies didn't get *shipped* with G.I. Joe voice boxes; it was a prank by the ``Yes Men". They bought a bunch of Barbies and GI Joe dolls, swapped the voice boxes, and then put out a press release as the Barbie Liberation Organization (BLO).
g anization
They subsequently went to various economic meetings posing as WTO representatives and proposed some evil, but very hillarious, options for improving globalization. There's a so-so documentary on them called ``The Yes Men".
The wikipedia site for the BLO is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_Liberation_Or
Well, since you asked, I have Ubuntu running on my iBook.
I recently used OS X on a friend's powerbook at a conference, and I thought it was pretty, but the fact that I couldn't change window managers sucked. I really don't like WIMP interfaces for most tasks, but there are no other options on OS X.
Also, GNU/Linux, in addition to being free, runs faster on my iBook. I don't miss OS X, except for a few of the Gamehouse games I bought years ago.
Volunteering to store the waste products are you?
Come on, don't be chicken, it is ``CLEANER ounce per ounce than most other energy methods"!
And those damn three-eyed fish are so cute. . . .
Why does this sound like you're trying to build an electronic Maginot Line?
People MUST NOT make up distinctions that don't exist in order to lecture others.
`` It is currently not available, as of right now, and the release date is unknown."
So it IS going to be a part of Vista. . . .
Oh, it isn't that bad, I'm using one now to post from a coffee shop and I'm getting fine po
I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure why people are so wedded to the One True WM mentality. There are many ways of working with computers, and people have many different interests in using them. Even more, neophytes will have different interests, will bring different skill-sets to the party, and will tolerate different learning curves.
My own preference is wmii (wmii.de), which does away with the whole premise of WIMP interfaces. I find that WIMP orientations get in the way more often than not (though there are important exceptions). Eye candy is great and all---I love me some enlightenment e17---but I'd rather just get my work done, and for me that means that the WM should get out of the way, there should be no ``desktop", and I should rarely be using my mouse. If you're down with that, go check out wmii; if not, then, well, you're a blasphemer and a heretic and you are totally teh suxors. . . .
I don't want to feed the trolls here, but let me just say this:
When I teach a section in my ethics classes about Free Software, my students (virtually all of whom use windows) are astonished when I tell them that my computers (1 GNU/Linux laptop, 1 FreeBSD desktop) only get rebooted when I update the kernel. They are convinced that rebooting every few days is necessary for, e.g., memory management.
Even if BSODs are ``so last year," the fact is that Windows is poorly designed and poorly executed to the point of fostering bad habits and very low expectations in its users. So, suckitude is this year's BSOD.
So, what, all the IANAL-posters on slashdot should now do this work?
Insert obligatory Lionel Hutz quotes .
I mean, this is clearly one of those places where those who don't like the EFF could step up and, you know, hire some lawyers (presumably ones they think are good) and fight the good fight.
But, of course, that takes more energy than posting nasty things on Slashdot . . . .
Player haters, one and all.
Don't forget Ezekiel 23:20:
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh [is as] the flesh of asses, and whose issue [is like] the issue of horses.
Yep, turns out the bible was all obsessed with donkey penis size and horse ejaculation volume/force.
They're gonna have to close down the bible outlet near my home. . . .